So I've gone through and answered some of your arguments. But, my real question is... what is your alternative? If my political philosophy isn't guided by the bible what should it be guided by?
No biggie. But thank you for the response.
I'm just not going to dig into this right now, having spent so much of my life living in that environment and being bombarded by the apologetics. I know the futility of bothering to challenge you here until you're actually getting outside of your encapsulated world. Right now you've built yourself an "airtight" case, Josh McDowell style, that seems solid to you...
Thanks... I guess for at least recognizing the consistency of my conclusions with my presuppositions. You seem to presume that my presuppositions are out of touch with reality... frankly I'm not ashamed that I turn to scripture to understand reality rather than turning to my experiences and feelings... they are inherently unreliable.
Lol.... no, I simply said you are being "civil" in your discourse, which has nothing to do with being Christian, right? And yes, you can contradict the teachings of Jesus by your overall approach and motivations in regards to treating people with respect, within the framework of the community you share.
I should left well enough alone. I felt flattered. Now I don't. Oh well.
I don't dispute your last sentence in this quote... although I'm sure we have different feelings on how that should play out.
The issue is the interpretation and nature of Scripture, not what you say here. Again, why it's sort of pointless to argue with you. We don't have similar premises. For my own personal experience, my thoughts never shifted until my view of scripture changed... so I am fairly sure yours will not either.
So from other threads I gather that you don't believe the bible is inerrant. The thing is if you don't believe the bible is authoritative and that the state should be in subjection to God than what is your alternative?
Where does law come from? If it doesn't come from God than it has to come from the state. Then the state becomes a God unto unto itself incapable of doing wrong... if this is the case the Nuremberg trials should have never happened because what the nazis did was legal because there is no higher authority to turn to in order to condemn people who commit genocide that is endorsed by the state.
Again, we disagree on what is God's law.
If you want to understand what is driving legitimate resentment towards people of your approach and beliefs, it's that you feel comfortable imposing your own beliefs on them in areas that have no actual bearing on you in a culture that was never created to be a microcosm for your own specific personal doctrines. In the process, you actually drive them further from God.
Is this your goal?
Think long-term victory, not short-term.
Perspective.
I don't believe apologetics or political/legal action are fundamentally evangelical in nature. The main point of apologetics, and thus my purpose here, is not to convert, but to convince those that are already converted that there are good underlying reasons for the things they believe.
As for political/legal action... again there isn't neutrality in that arena. Everyone is trying to impose there beliefs on other people... especially people who want pluralism.
Historically the church has gone back and forth on how politically involved they should be. From the early 1900's through the 60s the church was largely uninvolved with politics... which I believe led this country down a very dark road. Then roe v. wade came and Christians woke up to the fact that there needs to be a moral influence on the government. This led Francis Schaeffer to write the Christian Manifesto. His message was that redemption is bigger than individual salvation. That God is not only redeeming individuals, but that he redeeming the world and every aspect of culture. Thus all aspects of life (including politics) are equally spiritual. While Schaeffer was an intelligent and humble man, those that heard his call were not always that way. In fact a rather toxic brand of legalism had made its way through many of the denominations that had not turned liberal. So when Schaeffer made his call the only people who responded were those like Jerry Falwell... who obviously has probably done more harm than good politically and evangelistically. In recent years I think things have gotten better and while the news reports every idiotic thing that Pat Robertson says, behind the scenes Christians are working diligently and humbly in the legal and political arena.
So bottom line Christians have an obligation to engage the culture on every level including politics. Christ is offensive enough on his own and christians should try not to add to that offense. But that doesn't mean we slink back into our sanctuaries and ignore political chaos around us.
Ultimately though non-Christians already hate God, I don't take any of the blame for people who feel pushed away from my religion. Anyway, people aren't saved by politics or apologetics they are saved supernaturally through the the work of the spirit and normally that occurs through relationships irl.
Finally. I'm conservative... not progressive. I'm not the one trying to legislate morality. It's the left that's trying to legislate their own brand of morality and redefine the place of government in society. I'm on defense, not offense.
I'm going to call this out for what it has always been -- an attempt by conservative Christians to establish themselves as the "legitimate heirs" to the Founding Fathers, speaking for their intent, and thus giving them power to dismiss any other voices without having to actually debate the issues legitimately.
The Founding Fathers were deists at best, not evangelicals, and they were very clear about not establishing the US on the basis of a particular doctrine or religion. Their GENERAL Christian heritage did play into their thinking about freedom (although in other ways Christian heritage was used to implement slavery and other ills/evils), and that is about all I'll credit you on this point.
This was an interesting argument from authority on your point, but please remember that you cannot attribute particular beliefs to people who didn't necessarily hold them in the same way you do.
Frankly I find it very hard to trust historians on both sides of the debate on the founding fathers, because both sides seem to be incredibly biased. But, I'm convinced that most of the signers were christians and that the deists like Jefferson and Franklin were not deists in the modern day sense. Moreover the deists felt that religion was critical to the success of america.
Also lets not forget Washington's farewell address.
George Washington said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
And who, in a political system that is not supposed to cater to any particular religion, determines what the "laws of God" actually are? This, again, is my issue. You have no special privilege, despite your claims, of speaking as God's mouthpiece except for your own personally held beliefs.
Well that's just it I believe that the federal government should cater to Christianity in a broad sense. That's the way the country started. Separation of Church and state was a federal/state issue. They allowed states to set up there own religions.
No, I don't have a special privilege... its the left that think they have a special privilege. I'm willing to work trough the democratic process and try to convince people. On the other hand the left want to use tyranny. The Left supports judicial activism. If the american people decide that abortion should be legal than by all means go through the democratic process and get legislation or amendments past. But, instead of having the people decide the issue 9 people who were never elected determined the future of millions of unborn children... that is tyranny.
If you were truly the minority, and Muslims were a majority, and they felt comfortable imposing their view of "God's Laws" on you, would you feel happy with that? Or would you then shift your stance and claim they did not have the right to do that? Empathize. Examine other perspectives here. Try to understand how you are coming across, and whether your actions are fair and kind again in a country that does not endorse by law any particular one religion.
I try to be consistent. I believe in majoritarianism... our political system is based on it. If I felt that my fundamental rights were being violate I would do what Christians for 500 years have been doing... I would revolt or leave.
But, I'm not going to empathize. Christianity gives a basis for fundamental rights... I don't believe new rights can be created so I don't think my views on same-sex marriage is depriving anyone of their rights,,, in fact quite the opposite as Washington noted above religion preserves those rights.
If you strip religion from the political sphere you are left with social darwinism and positivism... law is nothing, but power. Those political philosophies have far more damaging effects than Christianity could ever have.
Please don't drag European politics into this. I'm discussing American politics. You guys are not a minority, you've managed to really drag the entire Republican party towards a conservative platform that threatens to rupture the party from within, and chances are you will manage to drive out the moderates and claim the party for yourselfs. For being such a "minority victimized by society," you have far more power than you claim... enough to lead to the passing of Prop 8 in what should have otherwise been a slam dunk state opposed to it.
What happens in europe is important. The guiding political philosophies of the left in Europe are very similar if not Identical to the guiding political philosophies of left wing americans. By seeing what the left has done in europe we can se what the left may do in america. My argument isn't that we are victimized. but that we may be victimized if we don't stand up for our rights. Yeah no one here has been
interrogated by police for over an hour in there own home about their religious beliefs about homosexuals,but it happened in England and if it happened there it could happen here.
In regards to republicans you know its the other way around. The republicans have duped evangelicals into supporting them. I'm no fan of George W. Bush or any of his neo-con cronies.
For my own particular "argument from authority," remember, I spent 35+ years watching this from the INSIDE of the Baptist/right-wing/evangelical movement, was engaged with Focus on the Family, and was a registered Republican until 2004, after Bush's second election.
I know the mindset well. It was unfair when I was struggling over my own views, and now that I have stepped outside, it seems even worse to me.
I'll be the first to admit there are plenty of wack-jobs in the right wing. I'm sorry if you had bad experiences or were mistreated.
As for Focus on the family I really haven't interacted with their material much. I have credible friends who indicate to me that they are not very academically rigorous or even have much academic integrity in their studies and writings... which is unfortunate.
But, there are good organizations out there who engage the other side in a fair and loving manner.
I think you fail to see that this is not a theocracy. This is not Israel. You speak in a moral sense (based on your own personal religious beliefs), and within that framework, your comment makes sense; but you're not really able, apparently, to separate that from living within a political system that you do not own.
Your right I don't own the system. Who does own the government?
The Kingdom of God is its own separate kingdom. The laws of the land are irrelevant; the kingdom extends through human hearts, not through the legal system.
Those are the
exact same things that leaders of the Lutheran and Catholic church told themselves when they acquiesced to german demands under Hitler.
Thankfully one lutheran, Dietrich Bonhoeffer rejected this idea of two kingdoms, and stood up to the nazis. Bonhoeffer died in a concentration camp before he finished his book, Ethics, in which he wrote:
"Obedience to God's will may be a religious experience but it is not an ethical one until it issues in actions that can be socially valued."
Christians in foreign countries oppressive to the faith live victoriously in Christ without having to break or change the law. You think in very tangible, authoritarian terms about how your faith needs to be implemented, and in the process you try to strip free will from those you disagree with. You are far more concerned about making society fit your standards than actually changing hearts and wooing them; God is less interested about imposing strictures, far more interested in breathing new life into the soul.
There are just a ton of presumptions here. I've only expressed my religious views on politics, I have not expressed my views on faith and community.
I'm concerned with both wooing unbelievers and bringing the laws of society into compliance with God's law and thus bringing healing and redemption to society. I think those two things work hand in hand with one another.
Do you have a problem with my desire to bring redemption to society when it means the protection of state parks or making child pr0n illegal?
Let me ask you in 20 years if the Church in China encompasses 80% of the population should they not try to topple there oppressive regime? And if they do where should they look to determine what government they should have?
This is a mistake, to me; you do not liberate people by enslaving them further.
How exactly do my views enslave people?
I don't think we should pass sabbatarian laws or force people to go to church.
In any case, I know you're busy, and honestly I don't need a reply; I can probably predict what you're going to say anyway after your last post. We don't agree enough on the basis of truth / perspective to have a constructive conversation on this matter. I still stand by my prior post and hope you reconsider.
Yeah, I couldn't help myself.
...
, to put it in a nutshell, I think the push for conservative Christians to codify their own particular belief system through legislation -- while I do understand the intention and I can even see why some people pursue it out of positive intent -- is not mandatory or conducive to God continuing to do what He has been doing for centuries, or accomplishing His ultimate purpose as revealed in the Bible, which is to bring people into knowledge of Himself and making them part of a community of God that lives according to its own internal rules. 
